Several years ago, I had a safe job at Johnson & Johnson. I was one of those overpaid kids being groomed to lead the future of the company. My degree in Engineering Sciences justified my starting salary of $60,000, plus generous bonuses. Health insurance wasn’t a bonus; it was in my package. I could start paying back my student loans. I was living the nightmare and loving it. But, I wanted something more. I wanted to be challenged and in control of my own life. So, I shifted gears and matriculated into the University of California, San Diego MFA Playwriting Program. I just finished my degree and moved to Los Angeles. I’m finally living the dream. My wife and I are expecting our first child in April and it’s all finally hitting me: Did I just finish a degree in a hobby?

Here are the facts: as a playwright, I will have to take temp jobs that won’t challenge me, I won’t be in control of my own life, and I will not even come close to making $60,000 a year. The economics of the life of a playwright predict that I will have to supplement my writing life with temp work or teaching. There’s a slight chance I might get a coveted spot in television or film.

I’m figuring out LA Theatre, and in my first ninety days I find myself wondering if I should continue down this path. Should I cut my losses and humbly crawl back to my old job before it’s too late? Or, better yet, go to law school? In short, I’m reluctantly realizing that I can’t make a life as a playwright in LA.

THE PROBLEM
The LA Playwright is endangered. She writes and produces plays for free, with relatively little recognition of her accomplishments. Below are factors that contribute to this dying community of artists:

• LA produces more than 1,200 shows a year. Three hundred of these shows are world premieres.
• LA Playwrights don’t charge theatres enough to produce and develop their work.
• Many LA Playwrights self-produce their work.
• The majority of LA Playwrights have significant jobs that impede their writing.
• There is a lack of mid-size theatres.

ASSUMPTIONS
I define the LA Playwright as a playwright who aspires to produce work in Los Angeles and in other cities.

Introduction to Playwriting Economics
From Todd London’s Outrageous Fortune: the life and times of the new American play:

“A middle-class life is unrealistic [as a playwright]…15 percent of playwrights’ earnings come from their plays…” Most playwrights earn over half their living from temporary work, teaching, film, or television…“The average playwright in [London’s] study is thirty-five to forty-four years of age and…almost a third of the playwrights…were older than that (in other words, a full two-thirds are thirty-five or older)…The average playwright earns between $25,000 and $39,000 annually, with approximately 62 percent of playwrights earning under $40,000 and nearly a third making less than $25,000… Half of the playwrights surveyed live in New York City and another quarter in Los Angeles, cities where low incomes crash up against unusually high costs of living.” (London, 52-61)

Outrageous Fortune heightened my anxieties about the business. I’m stringing a life together right now with a part-time playwriting residency at Center Theatre Group made possible by the Adele and Ted Shank Playwriting Grant. I’m barely getting by. I thought I couldn’t be the only one struggling with this, so I talked to some emerging and mid-career playwrights in LA. I asked questions regarding their experience in LA, day jobs, development opportunities, and thoughts on the LA theatre community.

The 99-Seat Plan
Los Angeles uses the 99-seat plan, i.e., theatres with 99 seats or less can use Actors’ Equity Association members without compensating them with Equity wages. The Plan gives theatres an “Equity Waiver.” As theatres must bide by Equity rules and regulations, under the 99-seat plan, Equity members have the freedom to perform wherever they choose. In addition, the plan gives smaller theaters a financial break since they don’t have to pay Equity rates to Equity members. While the prospect of everyone having a venue to express their voice is an excellent goal, it has led to a glut of theatres in LA. It is this glut that has lowered competition, which has in turn lowered the overall quality of theatre.

Plan theatres are required to pay actors a minimum stipend between $5 to $15 per performance. There can be no more than eighty performances and no more than six performances a week. Consider a thirteen-week show with six performances. After the eighty performances, the theatre must pay Equity wages. Rarely do shows even run that long.

THINKING ON SOLUTIONS
I woke up from a dream to find myself in my worst nightmare. I’ve managed to trap myself in a discipline that isn’t financially rewarding and in a city that can’t satisfy my hunger to communicate with audiences through my stories. Sure, I can become a resident playwright at a theatre or figure out how to produce my own work, but I refuse to exploit myself by working for nothing. Playwriting is not volunteer work.

Money
Perhaps my biggest issue is money. Were you able to pay your energy bill this month through playwriting? Of the LA playwrights I talked to, many have significant jobs that prevent them from writing.

Based on conversations with twenty-seven LA playwrights, twenty-five reported that they work significant day jobs that prevent them from writing plays. Among the twenty-five writers are tutors or teachers, an attorney and an actor; a few work in theatre, or write for television and film, and a few more work in fundraising and communications.

Of the jobs that LA playwrights work, the majority are full-time jobs that make it next to impossible for playwrights to write regularly. However, these jobs are immediately rewarding in that they may provide the playwright with health insurance and make it possible to pay rent and make car payments. It leads me to ask if the LA playwright is really a professional playwright or a hobbyist? Is she a teacher or television writer who got her start writing plays, but had to put it away to focus on a viable profession? How about if playwrights get paid to practice playwriting?

A Job for Playwrights
In 2006, the Ford Foundation started a groundbreaking program for individual artists. It’s called the United States Artists. It awards fifty artists a year with $50,000 to do their thing for a year. Can’t non-profit theatres do the same thing? Can’t they raise $50,000 to $150,000 specifically for the salaries and development of their writers? It could be on a contract basis. A writer is hired to be at a theatre doing their work for five years. It only benefits the theatre that hosts the writer. The writer can be contracted to do workshops, lead talkbacks, and even raise money for the organization. I don’t believe this should be a fellowship or a residency. It needs to be a job!

A job connected to a theatre would keep playwrights writing plays longer. It gives donors and audiences new ways to interact with their theatres and writers. It gives the playwright confidence in her abilities and hope for her future. Where’s the next August Wilson, Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, Wendy Wasserstein? I’d bet money they’d be the playwright set up with a playwriting job at a theatre. I bet she’d be worrying about her play and not her rent. My suggestion is for theatres to hire one emerging writer and one mid-career or established writer, with a preference towards writers who haven’t started in television or film, or have left those industries.

Playwrights’ Union
The vast majority of LA nonprofit theatres tout their commitment to new play development and production as one of the top reasons donors should give to their organization. Most of these donors and foundations are in Los Angeles County. It seems to me that the LA Playwright has a lot of power here. How about a playwrights’ union? If playwrights united for equitable wages, higher royalties, higher commissions, pay for development work, travel, lodging, etc., it could make a difference how we’re treated by theaters.

Take, for example, the fact that theatres rely on us to make money. Why don’t theatres pay playwrights fees to develop their work? Aren’t writers in the room as well as actors? If actors are getting twenty bucks to read playwright’s work one evening, why isn’t the playwright getting at least twenty bucks?

I think we need a playwrights’ union. We should be paid fair wages to develop and produce our plays. Any workshops or teaching engagements need to have minimums. Commissions should be higher and perhaps paid monthly over a certain number of years.

Self-producing
Self-producing is fundamentally ridden with flaws. Although it feels good to see one’s work on stage, and this is the impetus for self-producing, it impacts the field negatively. Being a playwright doesn’t just mean you have work on stage. Self-producing doesn’t serve anyone. First, it doesn’t serve the lot of playwrights because it limits the number of voices that can be heard. It means unless you have money and time to put up your own work, then your work will not go up in LA. Second, there are many playwrights who live in LA and have regional productions all across the country who don’t participate in this community because it will cost them money to put up work. Why would a writer like Bridget Carpenter, Dan O’Brien, or Julia Cho put up a world premiere in Southern California if it’s not at South Coast Repertory, The Geffen Playhouse, Center Theatre Group, or La Jolla Playhouse? Third, producing one’s own work hurts the self-producer most. Not only are you out of your hard-earned money and spending time producing the show, you’re not spending your time wisely. You don’t have time to really listen and strengthen your play. And, chances are your showcase will not land you that really awesome television gig. In addition, you are contributing to the glut of theatre in LA and helping to spread audiences thin, so chances are your house will be thin.

So, stop producing your own work! The only time you should produce your own work is when there just isn’t a place for it anywhere in America or you found a new way to do theatre. Else, there is a theatre out there for you with an audience that craves your work. It’s your job to find out where you fit in. And, it’s hard, but that’s part of the job.

The Glut
It seems to me there are so many theatres and so few writers that want to work with them. So, you know that LA produces over 1,200 shows a year with approximately 300 of them being world premieres. As a newcomer to the LA theatre scene, this is overwhelming. With so many theatres out here how do I choose who to work with? What are the needs of these theatres? Again, in talking with LA playwrights about what theatres do they most want to work with, the names I heard most frequently were The Geffen, South Coast Rep, Boston Court, REDCAT, and Center Theatre Group (Kirk Douglas, Ahmanson, and Mark Taper Forum). Black Dahlia, The Evidence Room, Circle X, Cornerstone, Company of Angels, and Need Theater were mentioned more than once too.

The top three theatres that writers want to work with are large regional theatres with big audiences and large houses to fill and perhaps Broadway-bound aspirations. Broadway-bound theatres have incredibly specific needs. There are outside producers with demands, demands from the audience, and countless hurdles that these theatres have to jump. Breaking through those doors is really difficult. Not to mention, every other playwright in the nation probably has them on their hope list. Not saying we shouldn’t set our sights high, but the accessibility to these theatres is low.

The two theatres that stand out for me are Boston Court and REDCAT. Boston Court is a Plan Theatre, although they have an amazing, state of the art space and a great reputation. REDCAT is backed by Disney and California Institute of the Arts. Boston Court and REDCAT are two really great examples of what can and should be done in LA. REDCAT is just an amazing place to do new, provocative work. What makes these two theatres something to aspire to is their offering of real, professional productions with high production values. A young writer can build a career working with them. More mid-size theaters like REDCAT in LA would benefit local playwrights.

CONCLUSION
There aren’t really any conclusions we can reach at this point. The only thing we know is that right now, one cannot make a life solely as playwright without some serious changes to the climate of American Theatre. I’m going to stick it out for as long as I can, but the dream of being a playwright is quickly drying up. Good luck to everyone.

19 Comments |

SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

John Hudson

This is a frank and honest article and raises issues that need to be addressed. But it also does not deal with the critical business issues in a market that exists in over-supply. What is the value that the playwright creates by raising and framing a set of issues? For whom is it valuable? How valuable? How can it be quantified? How can that value be communicated to an audience? How can that value be monetized in payments that the audience make at the point of sale and also thereafter? How effective are theater institutions in enabling that value to be communicated? What percentage of the value do they take as their overhead (usually all of it)? Are they the best kinds of institutions to achieve this? And so on. It is by answering these underlying issues that we will create a new business model for the American theater.

Reply



Martín Zimmerman

Great article, Ronald. As a playwright just out of grad school trying to make a life in Chicago, I've found myself asking a lot of the same questions. So I appreciate your sober and frank analysis about the lives of emerging playwrights. It's very brave to admit you have these questions, and lets other playwrights know we're not alone. The article also has me asking a lot of questions. If we playwrights form a union, which I absolutely believe we should, how can we form a union that deals with the fact that there will always be playwrights who self-produce, or who are willing to work for free? Your article also has me asking questions about the role of teaching in the life of a playwright. In my attempts to grapple with the harsh economic realities that face an emerging playwright, I have not only been trying to figure out how to make a living as a playwright, but how to make a life as one. I have long thought that teaching at the university level might play a vital role in that life. But a lot of recent conversations about playwriting seem to regard teaching as a little more than a seductive distraction from writing. I agree that we need to have more conversations about how playwrights can make a living from their writing alone, but I think it might be a little simplistic to think that teaching only detracts from writing. For some writers (not all) teaching can fuel the work. Teaching undergraduate courses during grad school forced me to more clearly articulate my beliefs about playwriting, and made me develop a stronger sense of structure and character. Sorry if I'm rambling a bit, but this wonderful article has me asking so many questions about my life as a writer.

Reply



Lisa Soland

Ronald, while some of the points you make are good ones, this challenge for writers is not just isolated to those who are trying to make a living in Los Angeles. And, it's not just isolated to playwrights. But yes, playwrights have it tough no matter where they live. Living in LA as a playwright actually has many pros to it. It's easy to produce there. It's cheap. There are many out of work actors who are trying to get up in front of casting people so that they can get big money making jobs and they do that by working for you, the playwright/producer. I recently worked with John Patrick Shanley who lived as a playwright in NYC for years. He said that for the first 13 years in NYC, he made $100 for every play of his that was premiered there. This is the way it is. It's hard. If a writer is not ready for hard, then yes, maybe they should consider another field, especially if they are the primary bread winner and have children on the way. That sort of pressure would be very tough to take. I do wish you the best of luck and blessings with your writing, but it takes time for sure, and the writer, no matter what sort of things they write, needs to figure out how they can make a go of it, for long term struggling. And if they don't have to, hey, great. But for most writers I know, it takes time. And during that time of waiting for the big break, a writer develops his or her craft and actually begins to write stuff that's maybe worth something. Ray Bradbury said it takes 20 years to get any good, and I'm thinking that's probably true. Good luck!

Reply



Trevor Allen

A wonderful and very thought provoking article. I had a similar "now what" experience after graduating UCLA's College of theatre, film and television. Going to LA to do theatre was like going to Las Vegas to get a good night's sleep. It's possible... but it's not really what the town was about. One of the reasons I left LA, moved north and got my playwriting MFA in the Bay Area. But it's even more difficult to make a living as a playwright there and it has it's own regional versions of the challenges he details in this piece. Rather than a 99 seat showcase code we have the MBAT and the BAPP and they have had a similar effect in San Francisco. Both good and perhaps not so good. But I'm intrigued by many of the suggestions and I really appreciated reading this point of view. I wish him the best of luck because he's obviously still fighting the good fight!

Reply



jane

It's called "Show Business" people -- emphasis on business. The problem with MFA people in general (and I think the author is really hoping to get seen for that TV deal -- that's not how it works btw, you have to write a TV spec script) But MFA people believe they are making art. And that art should be recognized and paid for. But that's only true in Europe. Where's the money coming from here? In Wisconsin they can't pay their unions because "the government = the tax payers" we as a society can't pay for it any more. It's pensions or art, it's cheese and welfare for poor people or art. It's tax breaks for corporations - yes, because then they can hire people and give out jobs. If you want your stuff produced, don't write plays, get a TV job, and make a living. Playwrights can't make a living. Get a job that doesn't suck your soul or energy and write at night, like I do. If it's art, then it's a labor of love, if it's to make a living -- in the US today that's not possible. Write indie films or webisodes and hope. There's plenty of actors starving too, playwrights aren't special. Sorry about your MFA, (and student loans) but unless you're writing for film it was probably a waste of money. You were probably a good writer before. And would have learned just as much entering contests and getting your stuff out there in the real world. It's a business.

Reply



Ronald McCants

Continued provincial thinking will not get us anywhere. Accepting the status quo as ironclad doctrine will only delay our progression to a healthier artistic climate. Some people are probably content with working during the day and writing at night. More power to you. My point is art does not just have to be a labor of love. Sacrificing one’s quality of life, family objectives, etc ought not to be in our job descriptions. My point is I shouldn’t have to move to Canada or Europe to be an artist, especially if there are alternative ways to do things already in action in America. VALUATIONS I agree that real, measurable valuations are a great way to further investigate these issues. It may lead to an innovative business model for some American theatres especially if due diligence is performed on thriving programs like with the Ford Foundation. INCOME Naomi Iizuka once told me the hard fact about writing plays is that we will have to find other lines of work for financial stability. Many writers with graduate degrees choose television, film, or teaching as their primary source of income. I’m writing my plays and working a moonlighting gig just like everyone else until I can find a salaried position. Until we find new ways to articulate what we want and need as playwrights and a consortium of us raise the issues together, they cycle will repeat. ALL FOR THE BIG BREAK I’m all for the big break. I agree it takes most writers a significant amount of time before they have their big break. I believe should be talked about more openly. My point in raising the issues about my specific struggles in LA is not to neglect everyone else, but my effort in keeping things specific instead of over generalizing. That said, if it takes a playwright 13 or 20 years to get their big break, shouldn’t we use that information to our advantage? Should that playwright have been working on a separate career, i.e. real estate or financial advising, while their writing improved? It has been my experience that I’m told to take certain, menial jobs and wait for my big break- a break that may never happen. I’m not saying those jobs are below me because I’m working one now. I want us to find life solutions for writers that are dynamic and exemplary, so other artists can follow suit. In short, I’m suggesting a revolution in how we perceive and live as writers. TAXES OR FUNDRAISING Maybe something’s unclear. Nonprofit theatres are excellent institutions that raise money from individuals, foundations, and corporations. Most theatres rely on fundraising each year to keep their doors open. I raise money for Center Theatre Group on the phone. I do it six days a week. I’m well aware of how much money can be raised in a single phone call to an individual donor. I’ve received grants. It’s not rocket science and it doesn’t take much more effort with nonprofits I’ve worked for to raise a hundred grand. They can do that in a night. THE BUSINESS Give me a break. I’ve had work produced in Europe. My collaborators and the audience treated me with the utmost respect because they valued my contribution. The expectations and perceptions were vastly different from America, and that’s what made it an enticing place to do work. I doubt their congeniality has little to do with the diet or genes. Perhaps, it’s the way they support the arts. And, while we’re on the subject of business, an MFA is great especially if you may depend on teaching because chances are you can ask for more in your salary. I didn’t pay for my graduate education which included a little something on spec scripts and networking. The Playwriting Faculty at UCSD makes sure that their students do not incur significant financial burdens when matriculating into the program. It wasn’t always this way, but it was the forward thinking of Adele and Ted Shank and Allan Havis that make it free or virtually no cost to be a graduate student playwright. I even hear Yale’s doing a great job with a similar effort. I guarantee you it all started with a wild idea. Let us all be reminded that this journal is about deep thinking about current challenges in American New Play Development. Incorrect assumptions about me probably should be avoided if possible because that solves nothing. My hope is that because I have been generous that contributors would also be generous whether they agree or disagree with the article.

Reply



David Dower

Hey, Ronald-- I hear your frustration and wanted to just say thank you for your generosity in sharing your personal experience with us. Keep at it. You have the skills already, no doubt, to separate the helpful comments from the unhelpful-- it's the same set of skills you use when you listen to the feedback (the "howlround") after a reading of one of your plays. Breathe, make choices about what is useful to you, and leave the rest behind. Tenacity, reflection, curiosity, and generosity will serve you in any situation and here's a chance to work out on all of those.

Reply



Owa

I've been writing plays for over 30 years. Haven't had a full, meaniful production in 25 years. There is no doubt in my mind that I am not only a capble writer but one ahed of the curve as well. I wirte not because I made a choice to be a dramtist. It was a calling for me. I have little chioce in the matter. Imean, really, who wakes up saying today I wanna be a playwright? It's something that happens. It happens for a reason. It's has a lot to due with the caliber of the voice, the tone of speech, the timbre of pitch and the perception of mind. I take the bitter with the sweet. Of course this doen't mean I lay down for the doormat role. But I accept the slings and arrows as wellas the cheers and jeers

Reply



jane

I don't know...I'm just trying to understand why playwrights should be treated more special than actors. I have friends with MFAs, very good actors (they've been in my plays) from great universities who are working as bartenders and waitresses and other "menial" jobs and these are people in their 40-50s, that will never get that break. They have unions, and there's more actors then there are jobs, if playwrights have a union (which I assume would mean playwrights need to jump a hurdle to get in, like SAG and Equity do) how does that help? Playwrights get paid for plays... ok, but does that add in the diverse voices that theater companies want? In reality if you look at what Theaters produce - most of it is the same old stuff, read TCG lists of what theaters are producing across the country and you'll see that it's things the audience who can pay for theater, and who donates to theater (baby boomers) wants to see, there's very little new and innovative theater. Young people (most of them) don't have the money or the interest in Theater. In Europe they do -- the government funds it and people have less "pop" culture choices for entertainment. Not much less, but less. Theater needs to become popular again, for that to happen it needs to be quality entertainment -- which means it needs to be cheaper, a destination choice for the audience and more fun and interesting to an american populace who'd rather have fun (sports, or movies, or?) It's all where people spend their dollars. Concerts are off too, Record companies are losing money - there's a big shift going on in the world around entertainment. Theater isn't exempt. Unfortunately. And if playwrights want to make a living playwriting, we have to figure out how to become popular to the audiences (the american public) so that we don't need to be funded by the NEA or the taxpayers. I can't honestly say it's better to fund a theater (or donate to a theater) vs a food bank. But if I can write a play that people have to see because it's entertaining as heck, that would be something.

Reply



Martín Zimmerman

Jane, I think Ronald is advocating for more theatres to give playwrights salaried positions. Most theatres have directors on staff, many have actors on staff as artistic associates or as part of a resident ensemble, and almost every theatre has a dramaturg on staff in their literary department (though those positions have started shrinking in the past several years). Playwrights are the collaborators who are left out in the cold with the current institutional arrangement. Arena Stage is the only theatre I can think of that has playwrights on staff, and this is only the first year they've decided to do so. Ronald is also right that most big institutions have more than enough money, or are more than capable of raising the requisite money to put playwrights on staff. It is merely a matter of will. Sure, adding staff positions for playwrights won't completely solve the problem (there will still be far more playwrights than staff positions) but it will keep many incredibly talented writers from having to choose between pursuing their discipline and feeding their family. The other major strategy we need to pursue in order to allow more playwrights to make a living from their art is to increase the size of the pie by advocating for more government funding. And I don't want to hear anyone saying there just isn't the tax revenue to support this. Or that the arts shouldn't be a high priority. Anyone trumpeting those lines has clearly been duped by the GOP propaganda, or doesn't care to dig a little deeper for the truth of how resources are distributed in this country. The money is there, it's just in the hands of the wealthy, many of whom use tax loopholes to shield their wealth from taxation. Many members of the highest tax bracket in the U.S. manipulate the tax code so that they end up paying a lower tax rate than many people teetering just above the poverty line. Keep that in mind next time someone tells you there isn't the requisite tax revenue to support the arts. Perhaps there would be if our country didn't have a tax code that's only a few steps removed from feudalism. And even if we are unable to increase the tax revenue the government brings in, there is ample revenue to vastly increase government support for the arts. The federal government spends more money funding military bands than it does to fund the NEA. Apparently the government does believe the arts are important, so long as artists are in uniform. It also bears repeating that, when talking about the NEA budget, we're talking a budget that is in the millions, which is chump change compared to the billions of dollars that go into many less vital programs. A minimal cut in the Defense budget could quadruple the NEA's budget. Think about how many playwrights and actors theatres could put on staff with that money. Once again, it's not a matter of resources. It's a matter of will.

Reply



Owa

PLAYWRIGHTS DELIMMA February 19, 2011 I don't want to seem reactionary. But I don't even think this guy is in touch with HIS reality. He didn't choose to be a playwright, like he did with his engineering degree. He only thinks he did. He appears to be attempting to apply his hard science mind to his artistic sensibility. He's married with child, he's desperate and thinking he can make it pay. He wants it to pay. He needs it to pay. He neither understands his Muse nor his plight... I think it’s like being hit with a blunt instrument when thoughtful writers—especially black writers---discovers to his/her horror there is precious little infrastructure to support their efforts. On the one hand, the general consensus in the wider theater world is the insistence that our experiences are so limited that they only cover the struggle with racism and living like maggots in the ghettoes of America. While on the other hand, the black theater itself is mismanaged, underfunded and as flat as the surface of the Mojave Desert. This is the weird and almost barren landscape, as a playwright, one must negotiate. It seems few writers ever check out the possibilities of failure when donning this hat. The probabilities are immense for Murphy’s Law to kick in. Playwrights who write for film and television seem to sustain the theater as we know it today. They’re in essence contract employees. Only able to express their individual creative side in the freedom of the theater; the theater is very Darwinian, only the string survive and the rest, well they’re the next meal. As far as unionizing? Not a likely trend in the current monopolizing American business mood. Union busting is the big move, not empowerment. We have Guilds---and they’re so much a part of the establishment, one can hardly tell the whore from the pimp. Theater as institutions spends more money on themselves, some because they’re profit making entities, and others, because they hustle the rest of us for their own enduring meal ticket. Theater also operates in this country at the very least with grudging maintenance. Like social programs when hard times hit, we are among the first to go. Famous playwrights down through history have enjoyed the support of mainline wealth. In the case of many of them, support of the crown (kings/queens) or a National Theater. In our own epoch, it’s usually the ruling classes and their elitist tastes that determines what is au’ currant and what is sidelined. Case in point was it not for the sure hand of Lloyd Richards (dean of Yale Drama, a potent force in American theater) August Wilson would not be the current flavor for black playwrights. Lots of black writers wrote about the struggles of black life in these lower forties. None less elegantly than he…. American theater is dysfunctional and suffers from attention deficit disorder big time! Serving in the theater is kinda like working for doctors without borders, you won’t see any major financial remunerations, but you will save life and help to make things a little bit better—possibly without any fanfare from an adoring crowd joyously dispensing confetti along the beaten pathways of your personal despair.

Reply



michael rohd

there is much to respond to in these comments- but at this moment, from a tech rehearsal, i simply want to address- "Lots of black writers wrote about the struggles of black life in these lower forties. None less elegantly than he (August Wilson)…." Really? I'd like to read plays and writers that I don't know, who you feel write at August Wilson's level of craft, insight and scope. Please, school me. Thanks.

Reply



jane

Ah but the thing we don't talk about -- the reason there's so many starving actors and actresses -- and starving playwrights is the secret hope. All of these "entertainment artists" all hope they'll hit it big. This is why people are willing to starve. Yes, you love your art (I do too) yes you think what you do is important, after all art is important, and you're adding to the cultural conversation and that should be paid for (by the government/tax payers because it's Important) However -- what every one of my actor friends is hoping for is to get that pilot, to get in that movie, to make tons of money and fame. To get the Oscar. And playwrights are the same -- it's damn hard to get a play produced, but what if it gets picked up, what if you're the next Ravi Joseph and you get the Pulizer and Robin Williams is in your play? And so, while you're waiting for that to happen you want the government / tax payers / theater donations / rich people to subsidize your quest for fame and fortune - give you a job on staff / salaried position in a theater for what? $50,000 a year, the same as teachers? So you can practice and improve and enhance your art form? However - think about it as a job. There's no Dentists that ever win an Oscar, teachers don't get a million dollar contract or an emmy. Why should anyone subsidize a playwright, or an actor -- the potential (lotterly like, but still possible) rewards of fame and fortune are enough. If playwrighting were a regular job and you got paid to write, as staff in a resident theater company, would anyone in the audience care to come and see your plays? Are they good enough? Will they sell tickets? How many plays can you write a year, how many stories can you tell that are worth the salary you are getting? And who gets the job? Which of all of us thousands (millions?) of playwrights is getting even the chance to "audition" for it. Only the MFA grads, from which schools? Frankly TV with HBO and Showtime etc is our new national theater, and there is sufficient "audience" and money out there to pay for it. It's capitalism, supply and demand. If this writer is really a good writer then he should consider the form of writing, art is art, if it's in a theater or TV. There's not sufficient audience for theater frankly. Talk to a producer about how hard it is to sell tickets to a play, even on Broadway, unless you cast a famous person. Playwrights don't sell tix, I don't think Superior Donuts made money after Osage County. So while I love Tracy Letts, his name wasn't famous enough to make money for his next show. If we have government funded playwrights as one person recommends -- don't you think we're going to get government funded plays? It's our culture -- capitalism. Vaudeville died out because of the movies, theater will never completely die out, plays, but playwrights won't necessarily be able to make a living until there's sufficient demand for their skills. You don't see Dentists out of work -- because people need them and are willing to pay. Write a play that makes money. Get famous. Most famous playwrights have other jobs - professors, or TV writers, or Film. The days of Arthur Miller (who was rich enough to marry Marilyn Monroe) are done. Just like record companies are done, Technology has moved beyond. Write for TV. That's the new theater - I bet he pays for cable TV and watches HBO. Does he pay the same amount every month to buy tickets to plays in L.A? Where do each of us put our own money for entertainment?

Reply



Douglas Clayton

When it comes to money - here's a simple question: Who's willing to stand up for paying artists enough to survive? There only appear to be five choices: 1. The artists themselves (playwrights, actors, directors, designers, etc) 2. The theatre producers 3. Private Funders (Corporate Sponsors, Foundations, Philanthropists, etc) 4. Government Funders 5. Audiences It's demonstrable that audiences don't usually care how much money artists make in any way that impacts their ticket buying habits. The majority of artists, despite their unions, consistently demonstrate that they'll work for free or nearly so. Getting all playwrights in the US to refuse to let their plays be done hasn't been proven to be possible. Producers in the last thirty years generally cut money for artists before they cut money for administrators or infrastructure, in the effort to 'keep the organizations going'. That leaves the funders, who sometimes have promoted paying artists (see UNITED STATES ARTISTS, that you mentioned), but in the last twenty years, haven't leaned on that point. Until some group stands up for artist pay in a united fashion, it won't change. Sadly, the artists themselves won't do it - and they have the most to gain.

Reply

2AMt » Blog Archive » Get (Half) a Job

[...] ways we might re-invent what an artist’s work life looks like. (I was particularly moved by the candid confessions this young playwright offered on HowlRound.com, as well as the spirited comments his blog post [...]

Reply



OyamO

1. Hit the lotto big time and declare war on the current U.S. theatre establishment. 2. Each playwright write one play that horrendously castigates the current U.S. theatre establishment and its top personnel. 3. Pray for the death of the current attitude of the current U.S. theatre establishment and its supporters. 4. Accuse them of being insensitive muthafuckas! 5. Plead for the gods to come and smack them all upside their heads, soundly spank their fat butts and decimate their ticket sales.

Reply



Ian Forester

I was thinking about this all day today as I was painting. I produce theater in LA now, having moved from Chicago about three years ago. Recently, I asked a good friend of mine, an Equity actor who is off-the-chain talented, to be in the spring play for our theater company, and he told me that he couldn't afford to work on the play. I completely understood where he was coming from. So I'm gonna throw something out there that might be unpopular and also might bite me in the ass, but here goes: The biggest problem I see with LA theater at the moment is the 99-seat Equity waiver. More to the point- it has stopped working. We need Equity to take the lead and find something different in order for theater to become viable in this city. There was a time that when a casting director who wanted to see new actors for a series or project would go to see theater, and hire the actors who stood out. The Equity 99-seat plans are built on this sound economic logic. By this way, Equity actors are given a platform to court MUCH more lucrative work on camera- so what if they're making gas money (not even sometimes, depending on how far you have to drive/revolution in Libya). In this scenario, it would be crazy for Equity NOT to have a showcase code. If Equity actors were prevented from participating in these small shows, all of those juicy TV and film roles would go to amateurs, leaving our best and brightest unknown and unpaid, simply because the amateurs were getting seen on stage in plays the Equity players were not allowed to participate in. However the circumstances that support Equity's 99 seat plan no longer apply. Casting directors rarely go to plays to find new talent- why would they? It's inefficient and can be inaccurate- think of all those brilliant stage actors who just can't scale down to do this 21st century mumblecore everyone's so hyped about. Besides, if a casting director is going to go somewhere for work, why wouldn't they want to be paid for it? Instead of going to a theater for free, they can go to any number of casting director workshops and be paid to see a crop of talent. At a play they might see 5-7 actors- if the cast is big- at a workshop they can see up to 20, and usually in less time. If an actor in a play is bad, the whole experience is tedious and they've just wasted an evening, whereas if an actor in a workshop is bad so what?- they're off the stage in 5 minutes and someone new is ready to be looked at. And with Youtube and Video on Actor's access the CD's don't even have to leave their house or office. They can look at 50 actors in an hour if they want to find new talent. Yes there are still some CD's who go to theater to find new people. But more often than not, if a CD (or anyone in LA for that matter) is going to see a show, it is because they know someone involved. If someone happens to be "discovered" in a play in Los Angeles, it is more often the exception rather than the rule. However it is the persistant myth of "discovery" that keeps 1300 plays going each year, and that contributes to the general level of mediocrity in so much of what's produced. People are producing for the wrong reasons- rather than an honest exploration and investigation of live art, they produce to shoot for their chance at stardom. Any artistic endeavor that values results over process is doomed to fail, and in so much of LA theater, we see this failure over and over. So let's put it out there- Guffman ain't showing up. If you're gonna do this, do it for real. And here's where Equity steps in- Grotowski so wisely pointed out that theater exists wherever there is an actor and an audience member. Even if there is only one actor and one audience member, the possibility for theater exists. You cannot have theater without actors. Theater without sets? Sure. Theater without directors? Absolutely. Theater without writers? Every night at iO, Groundlings, Second City, etc.- But you cannot have theater without actors. In any theater budget ever made, they are the only line item that cannot be stricken without nullifying the rest of the document. No money for concessions? Still theater. No money for music? Still theater. No money for actors? Ok, well now you're a bar, or a nightclub, or a grocery store, etc. Every producer knows that the best actors make the best theater. Hands down. And we will pay for them- we just have to be told that we have to. And if we start paying real money for actors, we'll have to start paying real money for production people, and directors, and PLAYWRIGHTS, and everyone else involved in the process. The amount of money necessary to produce a play would rise considerably. But would that be such a bad thing? Is producing theater in LA too cheap and easy? It is my belief that there is currently no better city in America to create and produce new plays. LA has a thousand small theaters as well as incredible alternative venues and warehouse sites. The population here is crowded with not just great actors, but great artists of all disciplines- something that the most inter-disciplinary of art forms (theater) benefits from more than the rest. There is an emerging audience that is tired of the Hollywood shitshow and wants to engage in real cultural dialogue rather than consume pre-sold product. And the cost of doing business is relatively low- the play you produce in LA for $15k costs $30k in Chicago and up to $200k in NYC. Let's not get it twisted- we are a hotbed. If we choose to be- However if we're gonna get there we have to separate some wheat from some chaff, and there is way more chaff than wheat laying around. So much that it blinds a potential audience member and turns them away from a potentially tasty experience. It's as if someone handed you a cheap plastic cd case and told you it was a sandwich- then told you to eat it. Trusting them- also because you had given them 20 bucks- you eat the cd case, which you now think is a sandwich, and it tastes like shit. In fact, the whole experience is almost too unpleasant for words. After eating 2 or 3 of these "sandwiches", what would you do the next time someone says they'll give you a sandwich for 20 bucks? Would you eat it? Or would you rather get a burger from MacDonalds? Or In-N-Out? At least there you know what you're getting- it's standard, you can see the trailer on the menu, and when you consume it you know your hunger will at least be satisfied. Sure it's not a gourmet turkey club with sliced avocado, but it's better than a piece of fucking plastic. That's the challenge theater producers face when approaching their audience. It's not that they're failing us, it's that we have failed them for so long- reaching for results rather than honoring process, creating work so we can show off rather than engaging in cultural dialogue, and putting our effort behind "being seen" rather than telling the truth. By raising the cost of doing business, and not of marketing budgets or postcard mailers, but raising the cost of what goes on-stage- I believe we can raise the level of the work, which will raise the level of involvement from both audiences and donors- I think Chicago has one of the best Equity situations going- if, as a producing theater, you decide you want to use Equity actors, you are let in on one of several tiers- after a certain amount of time on one of these tiers, you are compelled to move to a new, higher tier. Certain theaters can only hire one Equity actor per show. What ends up happening is a natural mentorship. Usually that one contract goes to an older, more experienced, Equity actor, and the other roles are filled with non-Eq players. The guy who knows what he's doing is afforded the respect he has earned, and the greenhorns learn from him. From getting a production's priorities in order to creating a mentorship culture and shared theater community- a reorganization of how Equity does business in LA would undoubtedly have far reaching effects. If done properly, and at the right time, our culture and craft would flourish. If done improperly, we would nip our potential in the bud. To be done properly producing organizations, not individual artists, need the support of their communities. In Chicago the city prides itself on its identity as a great theater city. The city government supports companies with operating grants, sweetheart leases, and lenient permits. Chicago understands that artists re-vitalize their city. Theater has greatly contributed to rising inner-city property values which has in turn led to the growth of other small business in areas that used to be overrun with poverty and violence. If LA wanted to really re-vitalize downtown they could learn from this approach- but the support doesn't have to come from just government- it can come privately, from board members and private sponsors, commercial property owners, and local chambers of commerce. Raising the cost of doing business and then sponsoring producers- rather than relying on corporate or government sponsorship for individual artists, declaring war on the current theater establishment, or waiting to win the Oscar lottery- would create an environment where acting jobs in the theater weren't a favor actors did to producers in exchange for a chance to be seen, but were instead a viable means of making a modest living. Rather than working in restaurants, these artists would be practicing their craft, raising the bar rather than tending it, and realizing the full potential of the next great theater city in the world. Mad respect to Doug Clayton and the LA Stage Alliance-

Reply



Jonathan

I'm so late to this discussion and I don't know if anyone will even notice. But I just want to support Ronald's argument - especially his thoughts about self producing. I'm so tired of being preached to about self-producing my own work. I've never had a desire to do it and I agree with Ronald that in most cases it's a waste of time.I believe it takes pressure off producers and theater companies to seriously pursue and consider new work. Plus writers are not able to foucs on the work, while instead bogged down with all the producing and fundraising duties. Plus it creates a glut of so-so work. So what happpens is - so-so work gets produced, folks see it, agree its so-so, then form the impression that all new plays and new writers are so-so to horrible. Not saying that good plays cannot come out of this... but even if they do, the unfortunate assumption is that if the play was any good, someone would be willing to produce it for you. I'm not saying so-so work doesn't happen in the professional theater. It does. But at least you didn't have to go broke making it happen. And as long as the work was not an absolute, dismal failure, you still have an agent, literary managers, and an artistic director or two advocating your work.

Reply



Christine U’Ren

This is a very interesting debate. But I have to say that I've learned a lot more about my own plays from self-producing them (with a group of fellow producers; I don't think anyone can do that job on their own) than I would if I'd done nothing but send the initial scripts around to a bunch of theaters which would very likely ignore them. I agree that production duties mean the self-producer can't concentrate solely on the writing, but it still helps enormously to see how the show looks and sounds onstage. Other people involved in the shows have contributed invaluable ideas. Now if I do ever get around to sending things out to bigger producers, I know I have MUCH better scripts to send. And I can quote audience members and even a critic who was glad I didn't let the scripts languish in some literary manager's unread pile. If you don't have the ability or inclination to produce your own plays, then don't--it's not the only way to work--but I don't agree that it's hurtful to the theater community for others to do it.

Reply